I vote for the latter, because the whole point is the passing on of successful traits, not the utilization of them. Everything dies...It's the ones that die AFTER making viable babies that matter.
2007-05-01 06:34:49 · 9 answers · asked by dissolute_chemical 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Even the definition of species is largely a series of reproductive qualifications. Your second phrase is significantly better.
2007-05-01 06:39:33 · answer #1 · answered by Doc Occam 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
An interesting question. However you have forgotten a few things that may have been able to change your views.
Survival of the fittest is by my prespective still the Fittest answer .
Why ?
Ok, Let's assume you know about CD (Charles Darwin) theory of evolution.
Well, to give you a very simple example. Should a category of humans be split into "Fit" and "unfit". we assume that both are very capable of reproduction.
The fit will have more access to food and adeptablity with it's ever changing environment. Not to mention they are capable to assault and defend themselves from harm and invasion.
The unfit will be only able to find limited amount of food and unable to adept to most environment around them. They also aren't very effective when it comes to protecting themselves from invasion and assault. They can't even make a counter attack or invade another.
The score has shown that the possibility of survivalbility is obvious that even if you are CAPABLE to reproduce you aren't fit to survive to continue your traits which is impossible to thrive in a variable environment with only limited amount of food and protection.
you will eventually die out just like the DODO birds ... they were very capable to reproduce but they weren't fit to fend for themselves for they were the biggest bird of their time and didn't know how to fear when a threat presents itselves right up their door step.
So , survival of the fittest is still the only logical reason unless you are able to prove me wrong.
Before you bombard me with more of your "logics" Survival of the Fittest INCLUDES the ability to reproduce otherwise it won't be called "fittest". Therefore, don't let me repeat this twice. Thank you.
2007-05-01 13:51:09 · answer #2 · answered by ???? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, it's only survival of the fittest to breed, even Darwin mentions that in Origin.
whoever passes on the most genes wins, including things like the brothers and sisters of an organism breeding not the organism itself (passing on genes most like yours-kin selection....seen in herds and people)
2007-05-01 13:45:20 · answer #3 · answered by LabGrrl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From a biological perspective, spreading your genes is the indicator of 'success' for your genome. So, you Atheists should work on out-breeding the Christians.
2007-05-01 13:39:40 · answer #4 · answered by St. Toad 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes reproduction of the able is more descriptive.
2007-05-01 13:37:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
when r u going to learn no such thing as evolution? been proven already. if you came from a monkey or ape why is there still monkeys and apes or if you came from a fish why is there still fish? the belief of evolution is the complete change from one form to another to exsist so therefore the old form no longer exsist...
2007-05-01 13:40:21 · answer #6 · answered by gubwv 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I suppose the two would both be accurate descriptions.
2007-05-01 13:38:31 · answer #7 · answered by Elerth Morrow ™ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the latter is most true. the fittest, are being swallowed up by the able , rapidly................
2007-05-01 13:40:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it's both..the fit survive and reproduce...the unfit die away..
2007-05-01 13:38:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋